"Had heard many of the clergy protest, that they could not acknowledge
_that they were represented by the bishops_. However, we might presume
that, if they could make that appear, _that they were a third estate_,
the House of Peers, amongst whom they sat, and yet had their votes,
would reject it."--Clarendon's _History of the Rebellion_, book iii.
That the Clergy in Convocation make statements to the House of Peers
through the bishops, only proves that the latter were a medium of
communication between the two; as does also, that on March 18th, 1662, "the
President informed the Convocation that the Lord Chancellor had desired
_the Bishops_ to thank them _in the name of the Peers_." CANON. EBOR.
admits that the bishops do _not_ represent the clergy, except by a fiction;
the Canons declare _that Convocation does represent_ them. His position
therefore falls at once to the ground.
I have set down the arguments necessary for maintaining my first position
against CANON. EBOR., whether they be good or bad, with sufficient
positiveness and distinctness to prevent their being again mistaken. I
would close the subject with the words of Atterbury:
"If I should affirm that the Convocation attended the Parliament as
_One of the Three States of the Realm_, I should say no more than the
Rolls have in express terms said before me; where the King is mentioned
as calling _Tres status Regni_ ad Palatium suum Westm., viz. _Prælatos
et Clerum_, Nobiles et Magnates, necnon Communitates dicti
_Regni_."--_Rot. Parl._ 9 Henry V. n. 15.